DISCUSSION: Hillary Clinton and Global Leaders Debate West-West Divide at Munich Security

[0:00] world. It was contested. We have the world, the West as civilization, but then the problem is [0:06] who is in and who is out. Basically, who belongs to this West as a place. And I think all this [0:13] because as a result of it, you have a really major division, not simply between the United [0:17] States and Europe. The division goes in every single country. And as a result of it, I do [0:23] believe that this is becoming much more difficult and different. But there is a great book being [0:29] written this year published by a Greek guy who is teaching in London School of Economics called [0:35] The West, A History of an Idea. And his major argument was that there was one characteristic [0:41] that stay with the idea of the West when you start from the mid-19th century, when, by the way, [0:47] the idea came. And this was the pluralistic nature of the West. The West was, in a way, [0:52] always asking themselves, who are we? And from this point of view, probably we're not in [0:57] such an unusual situation. It's slightly painful. [1:00] All right. So we have two ideas running already. One is that the West represented [1:07] a block of ideas, the free world against the Soviet Union, if you like. Ideas particularly [1:13] based on human rights, on individual liberty, which most countries in the world signed up [1:18] to, but about half the world really embraced after the Second World War. And then we have [1:25] a second set of ideas, really, which Peter brought brought in about whether this is a [1:30] battle of ideas, a new, a newer or different battle of ideas between conservatism and [1:36] liberalism, one in which the U.S. under its current administration says we are absolutely [1:43] a country of values. The challenge thrown down by Marco Rubio this morning, saying we're [1:49] with you provided you're with us according to these values which we espouse. And I'd [1:55] like to get back to the panel and just see again. We had a sort of a group, a [2:00] degree of international conference agreement first round, if I can put it that way, until [2:09] we got into the second half of this. I'd just like to hear again from the panel whether [2:14] you think that the U.S. under its current administration is making a new difference, [2:20] is making a new rift, or whether it's articulating a rift that is there, was always there within [2:26] the issue of the West. Go on, please. Gladden. After the end of the Cold War, I [2:33] think what happened is that there were certain commitments of a more progressive nature [2:38] that were brought into the victorious system. And although there were many different aspects [2:43] of the post-war rule of law system that worked, eventually these got steadily skewed in a [2:49] certain direction. And it's not just a left to right thing. It's also about where those [2:53] decisions were made, less and less in national governments speaking for their citizens and [2:58] more and more in transnational bodies or transcontinental bodies even. [3:03] And so those two things led to a distortion. But one thing that really happened is that [3:09] conservative voices who were criticizing this were basically excluded from elite institutions. [3:14] They were not participants in many of these debates. What's happened as a result, I think [3:20] this is an opinion broadly shared by the more conservative and nationally oriented parties [3:26] on both sides of the Atlantic, is that that set of commitments wore down fundamental strengths [3:33] of the United States. And it's not just about the United States. It's about the United States. [3:33] It's about the rest of the West. The family was worn down. Borders were worn down. Industrial [3:38] strength was worn down. And that injures our ability even to maintain the commitments that [3:43] we all made in the NATO treaty. [3:45] All right. So thanks for saying that. So you're echoing a bit of what Peter was saying about [3:49] this being a battle between conservatism and liberalism. [3:52] And on the where decisions are made. [3:54] What would you say to those who say, look, this is a battle about the rule of international [3:59] law, about the rule of law and the U.S. administration in expressing their views on the United States [4:03] and addressing a desire to take over Greenland, Canada even, is breaking those norms. [4:10] This is a completely different battle from the one you described. [4:14] I think that what the U.S. is doing right now is realizing that things went terribly wrong. [4:20] Catastrophically wrong decisions were made in the 1990s and early 2000s. [4:26] And under this administration, the U.S. is attempting to address those and to restore its sources of strength. [4:32] They're talking about, say, things like immigration. [4:34] And so on, which the Secretary of State was talking about this morning. [4:39] That's right. [4:40] That's right. [4:41] And of course, one interesting thing that's happened is now everyone is saying that the [4:46] rules based international order had been underwritten by a form of power. [4:50] Just because you're interested in making yourself strong doesn't mean that you reject all ideas [4:56] of international norms and agreements. [4:58] But we have to recognize that the rules won't enforce themselves. [5:02] The rules are only enforced. [5:04] Yeah. [5:04] The rules are only enforced when strong countries are party to them. [5:07] I'm not trying to boil it down to one example, but to take the most colorful example of the [5:11] past year in some sense, do you think the U.S.'s aspiration, Donald Trump's aspiration [5:16] to take over Greenland, is justified? [5:19] Well, I'm not speaking for the Trump administration. [5:23] No. [5:24] But you are speaking for a version of what you say conservative arguments are arguing for. [5:31] Well, I think the perspective that's underlying. [5:34] The direction of the Trump administration there is that the U.S. was committed to many, [5:40] many, many things that were separate from its core national interests and even dragging [5:44] it down, all the while missing things that were happening in its own backyard. [5:49] Why did they start talking about the Gulf of America at the beginning or the Panama [5:52] Canal and then later Greenland? [5:55] Because bad things were happening right in the neighborhood, right under their nose. [5:59] And if you can't identify those and restore your strength there, we can have it. [6:03] We can have it. [6:04] We can have it. [6:05] But let's not get into the discussion about what international laws were implicated in [6:08] each step of these moves and negotiations. [6:10] We can come onto those. [6:11] That's, I think, a separate thing, because President Trump moves in unique ways. [6:17] He does. [6:19] Can we? [6:20] Thank you very much for that. [6:22] Radek, your expressions were something beyond. [6:27] I can summarize. [6:28] Because I think it's a complete falsehood to claim that mass migration was a [6:34] pro was a left-wing project it was for decades supported by Republican [6:40] businessmen who wanted cheap labor from Latin America in the United States he's [6:45] right I agree right also it's complete falsehood to say that what about what [6:50] about migration in Europe then we've built a build big and beautiful fence on [7:00] our border with Belarus in two years and it's completely effective it's not a [7:06] left-wing or right-wing issue it's about we agree that we have the right to [7:13] control who comes in and and and who doesn't but it's not not inherently a [7:19] left-wing or right-wing idea you know you can have open borders like in [7:25] Australia on the United States in the 19th century or you can have welfare [7:30] status [7:30] you can't have both at the same time because you end up with a disaster also [7:34] it's completely false to say this was a hint about how supposedly the European [7:40] Union is undemocratic force the I was a member of the European Parliament I was [7:45] democratically elected it's a completely democratic chamber the European [7:50] Commission is nominated by democratically elected governments of [7:54] Europe and will you forgive me what is the point you're making the point I'm [8:00] making is that the European Union is not democratic it's not a democratic [8:00] system clearly that could be a democracy 관심 Qu fera example is the [8:03] matter of citizenry is that is that there are other forms of democracy than [8:10] then the national state democracy we have constructed that democratically [8:13] governed European Union and and this myth that gave uslex it that somehow [8:21] Brussels bureaucrats are imposing directives on member states is complete [8:27] ile in if that's not how the Europe European Union works we might come on [8:32] is most tested but secretary clinton well as as perhaps one of the few people who has actually [8:41] been around since the end of the second world war um let me uh let me add my version of history [8:49] to uh the revisionism that i i hear in not just this conversation but so many other places [8:57] it is for me a blessing that freedom was expanded to include in the united states for example the [9:11] right of black people to be treated at least better than they had been for 400 or so years [9:19] it was a culmination of freedom for women to be given their rights much more fully than they had [9:28] been it was i think [9:31] a dramatic recognition of human dignity for gay people to be able to be treated without fear and [9:39] even marry which to me is creating a family so you know i understand conservative impulses [9:49] i understand we are fighting an ideological battle that is as old as time there are those [9:55] of us who are more comfortable in a more open tolerant world [10:01] there are those who have their concerns about it because they worry about the impact [10:06] on existing institutions like the family community and others so this really yes [10:14] migration has been a huge flashpoint more people were deported under my husband and barack obama [10:26] without killing american citizens and without putting children into detention camps than were in [10:32] prison until this very first year of this first year of this first year of this first year of this first year [10:37] of this first year of his first term of his first year of his first term or this first year of trump's [10:40] second term so i think it's important to look at the facts because very often the ideological [10:48] impulse to try to protect the status quo or return making america great again in some nostalgic past [10:55] that existed for white men and capitalist enterprise was not exactly [11:01] like me and a lot of other people who are part of our national fabric I have [11:07] no argument with the necessity of trying to figure out how do we form families [11:13] I'm very proud of my family I'm proud of my three grandchildren I am proud to be [11:17] part of that tradition that doesn't mean everybody has to be that doesn't mean [11:23] everyone who doesn't have children is somehow an illegitimate human being so [11:27] how do we make the case in a positive way not a bullying and very shameful way [11:33] so this debate that's going on is driven by an effort to control people to [11:40] control who we are how we look who we love and I think we need to call it for [11:47] what it is there is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things [11:52] like migration it went too far it's been disruptive and destabilizing [11:58] and it needs to be fixed in a humane way with secure borders that don't torture [12:04] and kill people and how we're going to have a strong family structure because [12:09] it is at the base of civilization. Secretary Clinton, may I say thank you for that and you've got [12:15] you really mean that yes I do I do and you've got several rounds of applause [12:20] there but I'm really interested in the in the line that our discussion is [12:24] having already which is a battle within the West between conservatism and [12:29] liberalism. [12:29] But I don't think we would be having this discussion at all if it [12:33] weren't for some of the positions the US administration has taken and let me take [12:39] one of them which is Ukraine which is obviously at the center of the Munich [12:44] discussions in the past couple of years and the line that the Trump [12:48] administration has taken in trying to resolve the Ukraine conflict are [12:54] following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and [12:59] it's apparent thrust to accept Russia's territorial encroachment on Ukraine and [13:07] to you I absolutely you know I understand we've had various versions of [13:13] it already your characterization of a clash between conservative liberal [13:16] values being you know at the heart of what's going on in the West but in this [13:20] particular one a security issue one that involves international law whether [13:25] countries still respect those international laws laid down after the [13:30] World War do you think that that brings a new Rift within the West Ukraine the [13:35] US's position yes I am I think that the Trump administration's position toward [13:42] Ukraine is disgraceful I think the effort to force Ukraine into a surrender [13:49] deal with Putin is shameful I think the effort that Putin and Trump are making [13:55] to profit off the misery and death of the Ukrainian people is a historic error [14:02] and corrupt to the nth degree and so I I believe Ukraine is fighting for our [14:08] democracy and our values of freedom and civilization on the front lines losing [14:15] thousands of people and having their country destroyed by one man's mania to control them [14:23] and I think Trump either doesn't understand or could care less about that suffering so that's [14:30] what I think and so do you think he has [14:33] destroyed the West to go to our title he has betrayed the West he's betrayed human values [14:40] he's betrayed the NATO Charter the Atlantic Charter the Universal Declaration of Human [14:47] Rights a lot of what has been done before to try to make sense of how difficult it is to [14:53] restrain people who want unaccountable power and none of us in this room including all of [14:59] us on this panel would choose to live under a regime that [15:04] is so unaccountable that it could act with impunity the way that Putin does except that's [15:09] who Trump is modeling himself I don't think we would be having this debate under that kind of [15:14] regime for sure we will come back I suspect to the conservatism and liberalism clash within the West [15:21] but thank you for that Peter do you agree that the Trump administration's actions on Ukraine [15:27] have produced a rift in the West well uh first I think you really don't like him [15:35] absolutely true but I really not only do I not like him I don't like him because of what he's [15:40] doing to the United States and the world and I think you should take a hard look at it if you [15:45] think that there is something good that will come out of it what I think what I think Trump uh Trump [15:50] is doing in America I think it it is reaction reaction reaction for something that some for [15:57] some policies that really went too far too far from the regular people too far from reality [16:05] you know we we saw the the cancel culture that's that we saw the the woke Revolution we we don't [16:12] I don't agree with the gender Revolution the climate alarmism gender women having their rights [16:18] I think there are two genders so but but some of some of us some of us some of us think that there [16:28] is more than one or more than two sorry more than two gender I think there is male and female and [16:34] the rest probably is [16:35] a social construct so this is something that went too far but does that justify selling out the [16:41] people of Ukraine who are on the front lines dying to save their freedom and their two genders if [16:47] that's what you're worried about can I please finish my points I'm I'm sorry that uh it makes [16:54] you it makes you nervous I'm really sorry for that it makes me very very happy I have to I have to [17:05] uh I have to say one more thing you said that Ukraine fights for our future and for our freedom [17:13] I think first Ukraine fights for Ukraine's future Ukraine's freedom and Ukraine's sovereignty and [17:22] Independence so we should help them of course but I what I see in on some people in the West [17:30] they are trying to misuse help the Ukraine but that's another question I don't know [17:36] I don't know if Trump's administration is uh is helping the Ukraine to stop the war I believe I [17:44] believe that there is such an approach I don't see any other uh any other strong player strong [17:51] geopolitical player who would be able to force Russia to stop killing the Ukraine people and [17:57] stop destroying their country I don't see maybe China but China makes nothing I don't know if if [18:06] Trump is forcing Russia uh in the way that they will stop the war I don't know I only see that the [18:13] only Americans right at the moment can make it I see the dialogue do you think Europe could uh could [18:20] put more pressure on Russia for example by putting pressure on Turkey by um targeting the refineries [18:28] of oil more and so on I think I think Europe also makes some pressure we release sanctions uh we do [18:36] plan but uh I think the Russians they probably don't care I when I visited Ukraine I saw the [18:42] really the good will of all people in Ukraine they were really United United and willing to to stop [18:50] the war uh but uh they keep inviting they seem to be also made some steps that probably a year ago [18:58] no one from them would allow to say or even suggest now they are they are they are ready to to make [19:06] a Russian side and that I don't see any any uh any good will on on their side so we probably are [19:13] agreed on that point Peter will you will you forgive me I want to come on to Ivan who's been [19:17] writing and looking at this for a long time from Sofia and other places now listen there are two [19:24] conversations and uh I want to make two points one is if we really believe that it's about conservative [19:31] versus liberal then conservatism is very much about sovereignty in the National Community the way the [19:38] Constitution now defines the freedom of speech is basically the right of the American technological [19:42] companies if you're conservative and if you're a nationalist you're not going to allow this and [19:49] there is a major clash of values listen probably the business interest of some of the company is [19:55] to undress people with artificial intelligence if you're basically going part of the community are [20:01] going to allow this and I'm saying this because this is part of the tensions that now we have [20:07] between Europe and the United States it is easy to be a [20:11] nationalist the problem is that the moment you start to be highly nationalistic you are triggering [20:16] the nationalism of others and this was by the way very clearly seen when some of the far right parties [20:23] in Europe very strongly opposed President Trump on Greenland because for them land is not real estate [20:30] and I'm saying this because in this conservative position there is a major contradiction and the [20:38] second problem which I found really important on this is I have a listen [20:43] I believe in the intentions of the American president to try to stop killing this is novel [20:48] there are more than 1.5 million people being killed or wounded the problem is that you cannot solve [20:56] this totally bracketing the question is there a moral responsibility are they equally important [21:03] I remember during the uh there was a this famous anecdote when the Versailles Treaty was uh signed [21:10] one of the members of the German delegation went to the French prime [21:13] minister and said Mr prime minister in 100 years probably people are going to have a different view [21:19] of who is responsible for this war and then the French prime minister said for sure but nobody is [21:25] going to claim that it was Belgium that invaded Germany and I'm saying this because in my view it's [21:34] a very important what we define as peace and it's not only about security guarantees you cannot have [21:41] peace if you're destroying the [21:43] moral integrity of a nation okay so let me even thank you very much and you also brought us into [21:48] one of the other points of disagreement between the US uh and Europe um which is over the definition of [21:55] freedom of speech or the understanding of of that I realize we have this odd role in this late night [21:59] panel of um exploring disagreement rather than trying to get rid of it which is the purpose of [22:05] most of the conference I want to throw then one other controversial topic in which is Gaza and [22:11] the reactions to that [22:13] um and I would like people's views of whether that represents a profound difference in values [22:19] within the West or is not is a matter of history of a matter of of uh of smaller relationships than [22:27] that but because many countries outside uh any definition of the West see this as um an uh an [22:36] example of Western hypocrisy um of claiming to uphold certain values and then not uh holding [22:44] a task uh for those um I would like people's views radic I'm going to start with you all right I'll [22:51] come to Gaza but let me just say that um uh we need to stick to the proper definition of [22:57] conservatism Edmund Burke was a conservative Winston Churchill was a conservative Sir Roger [23:05] Scruton was a friend of mine he was a conservative Maggie Thatcher was a conservative I wrote for Bill [23:12] Buckley's National Review he was a conservative and I don't think [23:15] any of these people would approve of what's going on now I can sympathize with what you're saying [23:25] and yet I would find it surprising if any conservative thought there was a single definition [23:30] of conservatism right it's very nice we're still not going to go too much into the philosophy of [23:37] conservatism but I take your point Gaza um I personally believe that the the Middle East [23:43] should be run by the United States as impartially and as successfully as hitherto [23:50] irony is a really difficult thing to risk late at night and anything that is broadcast I have to [23:59] come back on to the earlier question I mean let's let's talk about the uh plan for the resolution of [24:07] the Russia-Ukraine war that's offered by those who propose that it be continued there is no plan [24:15] there is no plan for a successful ending of the war on the battlefield there is going to be no ending [24:23] on the battlefield but the moment that President Trump called for negotiations to happen many many [24:28] many voices just tried to put him into the box of being a Putin apologist by the way it was that [24:36] point which led to the abuse of the American technological platforms by the American left [24:41] kicking off the president of the United States when he was still sitting as president I don't [24:47] think it's the fault of the American technology companies that they produce platforms that [24:51] everyone wanted to debate on that's [24:53] really not the issue that that's not the freedom of speech issue uh that we're talking about it [24:58] encourage polarization that we're talking that we're talking about that we're talking about in [25:03] the United States but it is a problem when political parties in Europe are excluded from [25:08] participation in debates and I'm very grateful to the Munich security conference for for for [25:13] hosting this debate that's the issue and and in some cases Legacy media networks are perpetuating [25:20] that so these it's not just a question of [25:23] the American tech the media is still plural and very very very very plural yeah but political parties [25:29] have been excluded that's and this is a precise issue political parties have been excluded from [25:34] public debate in Europe and by the way yeah today today I just want to stick stick you know broadly [25:48] to the um the title that we we have that we have the indulgence of post 10 p.m I think but you know [25:55] the counter to what you're saying is that peace without principle first won't last as peace but [26:01] second betrays the principles on which the West is founded uh and therefore isn't isn't worth it [26:08] it undermines the West that would be the resonant counter that Ukrainians and others are so I mean [26:16] let's see what happens rather than trying to like box President Trump in the administration into a [26:21] corner and smearing them as as Putin apologists who are about to sell out a country that's not [26:26] a Putin picture in the White House but I thought I thought I thought you were grateful for the new [26:32] demands that the American administration has put on Europe I mean I think that's something that we're [26:36] all all agreeing has been something I don't have a Putin picture in my house that's good now I say [26:46] yeah no I I I think I think I am still trying to find uh people who want to arrive to this one word [26:57] experience for me. I think Ukraine is at the heart of what the West division is, and I think that's [27:03] why both Roddick and Gladden went back to it, because first of all, the Ukraine war started [27:09] after Trump left, so anything he said on social media that got him kicked off for a while had [27:13] nothing to do with Ukraine. There is a plan. The plan is give the Ukrainians tomahawks, give them [27:20] more missiles for their patriot defense systems, allow them to inflict more damage beyond the [27:26] border into Russia. That's when they began to actually think about coming to the negotiating [27:31] table, when Ukraine was able to reach targets that were inside Russia. Inflict enough pain, [27:38] I mean, apparently it's not enough pain to have hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed [27:42] and injured. That is not enough pain for Putin, but inflict pain on the refineries, inflict pain [27:47] on the missile sites, inflict pain that will actually create the conditions for a better [27:54] negotiation. [27:56] I want to come to Peter and Ivan quickly, and then we're going to leave. The MSC has produced [28:06] a clock. I thought at the beginning the rules-based order had broken down enough. We're going to do [28:10] without a clock, but we have a clock, and we have time for questions. Peter and Ivan, quickly on [28:15] these points. These points, well, first I think we should try to learn to listen to each other and [28:22] not to label the ideological opponent as the public. [28:27] We are here on the West, and let's respect ourselves in the differences we have. So, [28:35] I really don't, I don't really like such a labeling as fascist. I think it's... [28:41] There are fascists in the world. [28:43] Well, there are. Maybe there are, but... [28:47] Including in Europe. [28:49] I think there are. It ended, it ended some 70 or 80 years ago. [28:54] No, it hasn't. [28:55] Hopefully. [28:57] This is something I don't really like, that every day, every time I hear labeling someone as [29:04] fascist or nazist or whatever, I think we should calm down, because this is dividing the society. [29:11] We are, maybe you are smart people. I'm not as smart as you. But, so we should try to learn to [29:21] talk to each other again, because this is something that went too far. [29:27] I, I don't want to, I don't want to, you know, talk about the Ukraine because it's the whole day talks, important talks. [29:35] I listened to President Zelenskiy, what he's, what he's saying, and he's got the, uh, the horrible position. [29:42] Um, I'm not sure if, uh, if, if, if Ukraine is able to use the military to beat Russia that would be perfect. [29:53] That would be perfect. [29:55] But I think, um, we should be realistic. [29:57] Okay. [29:58] first should be the ceasefire I don't know how to make it I think that I don't [30:05] want to repeat myself that all right so thank you for the points you made even I [30:11] want to say something on hypocrisy because it's a very important thing once [30:16] three or four years ago we have this big project on hypocrisy and we visited [30:20] several countries can you just say who we is I mean there was there was a group [30:24] of academics and you know if you want to visit the country and to get the [30:28] meeting on the highest level put hypocrisy in the title there is no [30:33] world leader outside of the West who is not going to meet you and for good [30:38] reasons I'm saying this because in my view and this was very clear in Davos is [30:43] there two different version of liberal hypocrisy one is the one that came from [30:48] Karni and to be honest Karni very much identified with the criticism of the [30:52] liberal hypocrisy he said listen people from the non-western countries they're [30:57] saying yes [30:59] every [30:59] I think is equal but you're treating Ukraine and Gaza differently he's right [31:04] and there was also President Trump by the way President Trump cannot be [31:08] accused of being hypocritical but no this is true because his major argument [31:13] is the biggest hypocrisy of the international order is that countries [31:18] are equal they are not equal they are strong countries and their weak [31:22] countries the only problem is that we know that countries is not equal I'm [31:27] Bulgarian it never came to my mind that we equal to the United States but there [31:31] is this idea of hypocritical idea of equality which is so important in order [31:37] to have any order and what I'm afraid is that the moment when we say the world [31:42] without hypocrisy we are saying simply the world in which there is only power [31:46] and from this point of view you redefining American exceptionalism is [31:51] being exceptionally powerful but then this risk be sure that if somebody more [31:56] powerful is going to come you're not going to have a moral authority anymore [32:01] because in our countries there's no snacks and too much talking andした [32:03] Because in the world in which everything is about power, where is the reason for the small [32:08] countries to distinguish between the United States and China? [32:14] Where is it to distinguish between this and that? [32:16] And in my view, this is the problem of hypocrisy. [32:18] There is one thing that could be even worse than liberal hypocrisy, and there is the world [32:23] with no hypocrisy at all. [32:24] Ivan, thank you very much. [32:27] And you took us to some of the central points there. [32:29] And there's been a huge debate, as everyone here will know, about whether Mark Carney [32:33] was right in his resonance speech at Davos to say that Western countries had been hypocritical. [32:39] OK, let's go to questions. [32:41] I'm going to take a whole batch of them and then use them as provocations for the panel [32:46] to respond. [32:47] Right. [32:48] So let me take several. [32:49] We'll start here and then there. [32:51] If you could say your name. [32:52] Yes. [32:53] That would be great. [32:54] Hello. [32:55] I'm Sigi Beklund from the Scandinavian Weekly, Day and Time. [32:58] And thank you for the lively discussion. [33:01] I was also here at the event yesterday, the night event. [33:05] And I was listening to Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who stated that about the [33:14] old rules-based order that we called out exceptions to our values and our rules. [33:20] Eventually, our exceptions became our own rules. [33:23] So we've been talking a lot about critique of rules-based order from the right. [33:29] But I wonder what you think about this way of characterizing the old rules-based order [33:36] from the left. [33:37] Thank you. [33:38] Thank you very much. [33:39] There's one here. [33:40] Yeah. [33:41] I've got a microphone. [33:42] There's a woman. [33:43] Sorry, I can't see. [33:44] Hi. [33:45] Should I? [33:46] Yes. [33:47] Please go and then I'll come to the front. [33:48] Richard from Deutsche Welle. [33:49] Yeah. [33:50] I just wanted to ask about the kind of terminology around values relating to the West and civilization [33:59] relating to the West. [34:00] So we heard a lot about values from the Biden administration. [34:03] We've got values in the title here. [34:05] Marco. [34:06] Marco Rubio. [34:07] I did a count in the transcript to use the word civilization 12 times. [34:12] So I'd like to hear from the panel who's more up for Western values and who's more up for [34:16] Western civilization in the discourse. [34:18] Thanks. [34:19] Thank you very much. [34:20] And there's obviously been huge debate since this morning about whether Marco Rubio was [34:24] championing only Western civilization. [34:27] Right. [34:28] Here in the front. [34:33] It doesn't matter. [34:35] The definitions here are confusing me. [34:38] Because it's not conservative versus liberals in the United States. [34:42] I mean, the discussion largely centers around conservatives are dead. [34:48] You can talk to a lot of them in the GOP and the Senate. [34:52] And they don't dare open their mouths. [34:55] So I think if we're going to talk about values, we have to look at the definitions of who [35:01] is determining the values. [35:02] I don't think anyone would call Trump a conservative. [35:07] You could call him a demagogue. [35:11] You could call him a self-enricher. [35:14] But he doesn't operate on principles. [35:17] So I don't think it's useful to talk about Trumpism as conservative versus liberals. [35:24] And then what caused the society in the U.S. to break down, it's as much about conservatives [35:32] outsourcing jobs to China. [35:35] Um. [35:36] They forced huge segments of the population to lose their prospects for their children, [35:44] which had nothing to do with two genders. [35:47] And so, or three genders, you don't have to like that anyway. [35:54] So I think we're sort of arguing around the bush because there are false divisions being [36:00] proposed here. [36:02] And what we have is demagoguery and populism. [36:05] Up. [36:06] Up against a lot of confusions within the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives, [36:13] within the GOP, frightened, scared conservatives who don't espouse conservativism because they [36:21] would be attacked by the populists in the White House. [36:25] So I think it's a mistake to argue as if there's a simple separation here or it all has to [36:32] do with three genders. [36:33] Thank you very much indeed. [36:35] Um. [36:36] We have one on the back and one over here. [36:38] And then, ah, sorry, one writer, he was the most persistent and got himself in the spotlight. [36:48] I have a question to Secretary Clinton. [36:51] It was 15 years ago that you ratificated here at the security conference together with Sergei [36:57] Lavrov the New START treaty. [37:00] And I wanted to know whether you sometimes get nostalgic about those times when you think [37:04] back. [37:05] And then maybe more concrete questions. [37:06] Thank you. [37:07] Thank you. [37:08] Thank you. [37:09] I have a question looking forward. [37:10] Do you think that there is any room for a nuclear proliferation when the war in Ukraine [37:16] is still ongoing? [37:18] Thank you very much for those. [37:19] And here in the front. [37:25] In the front? [37:26] Yeah. [37:27] In the front. [37:30] Yeah. [37:31] Thank you. [37:32] I have a question. [37:33] Łukasz Pawlowski, Polish MFA. [37:34] I have a question about the... [37:35] Ah, yeah. [37:36] Thank you very much, Minister. [37:37] It's about equality. [37:38] Yes. [37:39] Sorry. [37:40] I can't speak. [37:41] Sorry. [37:42] Sorry. [37:43] Sorry. [37:44] Sorry. [37:45] Sorry. [37:46] Sorry. [37:47] So let me tell you about the successes of Poland. [37:48] No, my question is brief, but the answer may be difficult. [37:54] The current administration is trying to redefine what it means to be American, the American [37:59] identity from a notion that what brings together the Americans is a set of ideas to the notion [38:05] that what brings them together is, you know, the number of generations that you lived in [38:10] the country. [38:11] My question is to Senator Clinton, because that's the argument the Vice President's made, [38:15] what would be your response to that? [38:18] And to quote him, America is not just an idea. [38:22] We are a particular place with a particular people and a particular set of beliefs and [38:27] way of life. [38:28] Thank you. [38:29] Thank you very much. [38:30] Is there... [38:31] Sorry. [38:32] Everyone has a silhouette from here. [38:33] Let me just take two more. [38:35] Yup. [38:36] There's a hand up there. [38:40] Is there somebody from the Polish Foreign Minister? [38:43] Yeah. [38:44] And then there's someone in the back. [38:46] Hi. [38:47] I'm Melanie Ward. [38:48] I'm not from the Polish Foreign Ministry. [38:50] Sorry. [38:51] I'm a British MP. [38:52] I wonder what the panel makes of the fact that President Trump's administration is spending [38:56] $200 million supporting far-right and MAGA-friendly think tanks in Europe. [39:02] Is that democratic? [39:03] Thank you very much. [39:05] And over here. [39:07] And then I'm going to briefly sum up. [39:10] Hi. [39:13] My name is Katherine Eikenberger. [39:14] I've got a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, please, of the Czech Republic. [39:18] You spoke about sovereignty. [39:19] Thank you. [39:20] What does respect for sovereignty require between democratic European states in a longstanding [39:28] dispute between friendly democracies? [39:31] Is it reliance on courts and us? [39:34] Or is there also a responsibility to seek political dialogue and reconciliation, please? [39:39] OK. [39:40] Thank you. [39:41] And sorry. [39:42] Was there one more? [39:43] I'm seeing dramatic gestures over there, but everyone is just a silhouette. [39:48] OK. [39:49] I think... [39:50] Right. [39:51] One more. [39:52] Anxiety. [39:53] I just want to make a dramatic gesture. [39:54] Paige Alexander from the Carter Center, formerly USAID. [39:58] Curious what you think about soft power in terms of all of this? [40:01] OK. [40:03] Thanks very much. [40:04] May I ask them? [40:05] Sorry? [40:06] Sorry. [40:07] Here, to the side. [40:08] I'm Ann Géby Laschek. [40:09] I'm with the German Tagesspiegel. [40:12] And we've been talking about Western Valleys throughout the conference. [40:16] And Madam Secretary, I'd like to ask you, I'm the mother of a daughter, and it absolutely [40:21] horrifies me. [40:22] to see what the Epstein files have brought out. [40:26] And I wanted to ask you, what does it say about Western values [40:29] when Western leaders have perpetuated and participated [40:32] in these horrific abuses of minors and girls? [40:37] Thank you very much. [40:38] We have gone everywhere from Newstart to Epstein. [40:44] Via some fundamental questions of the critique of rules-based order [40:49] from the left of civilization versus values of conservatism [40:53] versus liberalism in the US. [40:56] And other things. [40:58] Secretary Clinton, is there a couple directly to you? [41:01] Let me start with you. [41:03] And then everyone else gets about a minute. [41:04] And you get a minute and a tiny bit. [41:07] Yeah, I heard three in particular. [41:10] To the last question, it's horrifying. [41:12] And we're hoping that there will be continued release [41:17] every day that passes. [41:20] That doesn't mean, as our news commentators say [41:24] every day in the United States, [41:25] it's because someone's name [41:26] is in the paper. [41:26] If someone was there, they committed a crime. [41:27] But I think there's a lot of very troubling [41:30] and really horrific information coming out. [41:33] Today, it came out that Steve Bannon [41:36] was trying to get Jeffrey Epstein [41:37] to help him overthrow Pope Francis. [41:40] I guess that was part of the civilizational effort. [41:43] True conservatism. [41:44] True conservatism. [41:45] So it is something that needs to be totally transparent. [41:50] I've called for many, many years [41:52] for everything to be put out there [41:55] so people can see it. [41:55] So I think it's a very, very important thing. [41:55] I think it's a very, very important thing. [41:56] It's something that we should be doing. [41:57] And I think we're going to have to look at [41:58] the facts of the day [41:58] and not only see what is in them, [41:59] but also, if appropriate, hold people accountable. [42:03] We'll see what happens. [42:04] On the New START treaty, [42:07] which the foreign minister and I [42:09] were talking about this just backstage, [42:12] we actually signed, [42:14] President Obama signed [42:15] the New START treaty in Prague. [42:19] And it was, you know, [42:21] one in a series of efforts [42:22] to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons, [42:25] to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons, [42:25] and to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons [42:26] and to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons [42:26] control the US and Russian arsenals and I think it's a very big mistake for it [42:32] to have been allowed to expire I know that there was an offer apparently from [42:39] the Russians to extend it a year during which there could be some negotiations [42:45] the Trump administration refused that and and their response was that they [42:52] wanted to try to get China and other nuclear weapons countries into a regime [42:58] which more power to them if they could ever manage that and if it could be [43:03] achieved but I am very worried because Trump also you know he he tweets or I [43:09] guess he X's and whatever he does on social media late at night and one of [43:14] his recent ones was to resume nuclear testing underground nuclear testing and [43:18] I think that would be a terrible development [43:21] so I think that would be a terrible development so I think that would be a terrible development so [43:22] I'm hoping that doesn't happen and I'm hoping that there can be some efforts to [43:26] reinstate some kind of nuclear arms agreements you know with respect to this [43:33] question you know if you think about the 13 colonies you know that was a creed it [43:40] was an idea it was a philosophy it did not include the entire continental [43:44] United States let alone Alaska and Hawaii it was based on the founders deep [43:50] understanding of human nature [43:52] understanding of human nature of philosophy of what we might call [43:55] of philosophy of what we might call liberal thought as they created a new [43:59] liberal thought as they created a new country and you know when I hear [44:01] country and you know when I hear president or vice president Vance say [44:04] president or vice president Vance say things like that about how you know it's [44:06] things like that about how you know it's a it's a it's a nation it's blood and [44:08] a it's a it's a nation it's blood and soil and all the ways that he talks [44:10] soil and all the ways that he talks about it I think to myself I never knew [44:12] about it I think to myself I never knew he was such a firm advocate for Native [44:15] he was such a firm advocate for Native Americans because the idea that you [44:17] Americans because the idea that you would have a an approach toward the United [44:21] would have a an approach toward the United States [44:22] that ripped away our founding documents, our founding philosophies, is so contrary to the [44:30] way I understand American history. [44:32] So I think that it is not only wrong historically, it is a political device that I think is very [44:41] dangerous and should be rejected whole cloth. [44:47] Thank you. [44:48] Gladden. [44:50] I am a citizen of the Osage Tribal Nation, a Native American tribe in Oklahoma. [44:54] I voted for President Trump and Vice President Vance, as did the majority of our tribe. [44:59] So I can only speak for myself and us, but at any rate, I think he has not used the phrase [45:07] blood and soil, and this is not an accurate characterization of the thought that is going [45:12] on in the administration. [45:13] There is one thing on the panel I can agree with, however, and this is your point, that [45:20] conservatism has changed, absolutely. [45:22] In the 1990s and 2000s, there was basically a conspiracy of the center left and the center [45:28] right, both to sell out the country. [45:32] From the center left, we got a social progressivism which, yes, in the post-war period, had been [45:37] responsible for important advances in American life. [45:41] Native Americans were the last to get the vote, actually, even after women. [45:45] So that is very important. [45:47] But it didn't know where to stop. [45:50] The free market conservatives, there's a lot of things that the market does well. [45:54] They also didn't know where to stop. [45:57] So an important corrective had to come. [46:00] In Europe, I have to say, that corrective came from someone who made correct decisions [46:06] when it came to migration, family, and also the importance of peace. [46:11] And I hate to say it, but you can either acknowledge that Prime Minister Orban was right 10 years [46:16] ago, or you can wait another 10 years and then realize it. [46:20] The conservative voices, including his... [46:21] We have to see whether he wins the next election. [46:25] I'm going to stop you on that. [46:26] His voice has been excluded. [46:28] Yeah. [46:30] From what? [46:32] Decisions of the European Commission, which continues to go for qualified majority voting. [46:35] The European Commission, I think, feels that Hungary has quite a lot of voice. [46:42] Radek, Radek, make your single best point. [46:45] What? [46:46] Make your best point. [46:48] Sure. [46:49] Oh, all right. [46:50] Someone asked about Lavrov. [46:51] He's in Hungary. [46:52] Hillary didn't answer. [46:53] So I will. [46:54] I had a relationship with Lavrov based on telling each other Soviet-era jokes. [46:59] So there was a competition in the Soviet Union for the best political joke. [47:06] First prize, 15 years. [47:11] Someone else here about MAGA think tanks. [47:15] My take on this is the following. [47:18] So until recently, we had an unspoken agreement not to interfere in allied countries. [47:24] Party political rivalries. [47:25] Right? [47:26] Now, you know, President Trump received a populist candidate for the president between [47:31] the first and the second round of our presidential election. [47:37] So in the old days, we did interfere, but we did interfere on behalf of democracy in [47:44] the politics of autocracies. [47:47] And now it's the other way around. [47:50] And actually, Prime Minister Orban has created a new government. [47:54] What? [47:55] Prime Minister Orban has created a program. [47:57] What's the point you're making with that? [47:59] That it's fair now? [48:00] No, I'm saying it's completely outrageous. [48:04] And in Poland, for example, it's irrational. [48:07] Because in Poland, Poland was for years, for decades, the most pro-American country in [48:13] Europe. [48:14] And the United States had a wonderful situation in which the government and the opposition, [48:19] either way, was competing who would be more pro-American. [48:24] We have to start choosing sides. [48:28] A different dynamic will start. [48:30] It does. [48:31] Almost out of time. [48:33] We're all facing the same car. [48:35] On civilization. [48:36] No. [48:37] No. [48:38] No. [48:39] No. [48:40] Radek, I'm so sorry. [48:41] You will be eloquent on this. [48:42] We are. [48:43] I have an important point on the Western civilization. [48:44] No. [48:45] No. [48:46] We do, because they will cut the live feed. [48:47] You have one minute on civilization, but we let people go. [48:48] But I want Peter and Ivan to have a word. [48:49] You're running out of time. [48:50] Censorship. [48:51] Censorship. [48:52] No. [48:53] order to which we have all subscribed, Peter. I see that the fundamental divide of the West [49:00] is not between the West and the rest of the world but within the West itself. As I'm listening [49:07] to this, I think there was some question about the national sovereignty. Do I remember that [49:16] well? There was. There was, yes. So I think that the national sovereignty and the sovereign [49:23] nation state is the only platform that can guarantee the democracy because this is the [49:31] only possible way how to have the cultural continuity and how to bring the power into [49:40] some limited intentions. If we are not a sovereign country, if we are lost in some multilateral [49:48] organizations, then there is a risk. The EU is a democracy. [49:53] Well, the EU is consisted by a democratic national... [50:00] And a democratic elected parliament. [50:03] Democratic elected parliament without any legislative initiative. So, you know, this [50:10] is the only parliament in the world that cannot, that they don't have the initiative to bring [50:18] the law, to bring the legislation. [50:20] Yes, because the legislation is brought forward by the council and the commission. [50:24] Yes, but tell me what is the connection between the voter and the commission? Do I have, is, [50:31] is there any voter from the Czech Republic who has some influence on who will be the [50:38] Polish commissioner? I think there is no connection. [50:41] Commissioners are appointed by democratically elected parliament, the government. [50:46] But these commissioners are... [50:47] That's why they love Q and B. [50:50] You know, they, they probably don't veto to each other. [50:54] Everyone has some portfolio and... [50:57] Like any other government. [50:58] Yeah, it is like a government, but even the, the national government is based on elections [51:05] and some majority. [51:06] As is the, as is the commission. [51:08] I don't, I don't think it is in the same, same way. [51:12] In your, in your country, ministers are not directly elected. They are selected by parliament. [51:17] Yes, but the parliament... [51:18] Or by the prime minister. [51:19] Huh. In my country, there is a majority in parliament that gives... [51:23] Right. [51:24] There is a majority in the European parliament too, which appoints the commission, as you [51:29] know. [51:30] But, but, you know, my position is closer to the voter than the position of your, your [51:36] commissioner. [51:37] Of course, it's a continental system. [51:39] It is. [51:40] And I don't say, and I don't say it is an undemocratic system. [51:43] I don't say that. [51:44] All right. [51:45] I don't say that. [51:46] I just say that the democracy, that's the reason why we have to have the national sovereign [51:51] states. [51:52] That's it. [51:53] Ivan. [51:54] Just, just two points. [51:58] One is, and this is a really interesting question about the civilizational story, because in [52:03] the European tradition, civilization was not in plural. [52:08] European civilization was created as a universal with everything good and bad that goes with [52:12] this colonialism too. [52:14] The problem is how you're redefining this. [52:17] If we are going to believe that the clash is between different civilizations and so [52:22] on, exactly how are you going to define it? [52:24] And how are you going to define it now? [52:26] And listen, part of our civilizations are nation states that speak very different languages. [52:33] So this is not India. [52:35] This is not China. [52:37] This is not the United States. [52:39] Secondly, all these histories, I'm always saying this European Union, probably we have [52:43] common dreams. [52:44] Our nightmares are totally national. [52:48] And you can see in the moment of crisis, how much this is. [52:51] The moment when somebody tried to define European civilization as something that had been always [52:58] existing. [52:59] This cannot work. [53:00] And by the way, you know what Gandhi, when he was asked what he thinks about European [53:04] civilization, his answer? [53:07] This is a good idea. [53:08] No, and I do believe this is critically important. [53:12] This is a real question. [53:13] And my last point is, listen, we're talking about things, what Trump said or what anybody [53:18] said. [53:19] We're in a moment in which suddenly people start to believe that individual immortality [53:26] is an option. [53:27] The mortality of the nations. [53:29] If you're a Bulgarian, can I be sure that in 100 years, anybody is going to speak Bulgarian [53:34] anymore? [53:35] We're talking about the replacement of migrants. [53:37] AI is going to replace more people than migrants, believe me. [53:41] This is the other great replacement. [53:43] We're going to redefine everything. [53:45] We're going to redefine what is a nation, what is a civilization, what is the West. [53:49] And it's normally, he'd been like this in a different periods of time. [53:53] And just to say something much more positive, if President Trump was really insisting on [53:59] the civilizational approach, the only country in Europe he should not have deprived of Greenland [54:04] is Denmark. [54:05] They have been as tough on migration as Mr. Orban. [54:10] They are as social cohesion as you can imagine. [54:14] They're economically very competitive. [54:16] They're not the most ethnically diverse place. [54:19] So if this is the case, at least we agree that Greenland can be left for them. [54:24] Eva. [54:25] Eva. [54:26] Eva. [54:29] Eva. [54:30] Eva. [54:31] Eva. [54:32] Eva. [54:33] Eva. [54:34] Eva. [54:35] Eva. [54:36] Eva. [54:37] Eva. [54:38] Eva. [54:39] Eva. [54:40] Eva. [54:41] Eva. [54:42] Eva. [54:43] Eva. [54:44] Eva. [54:45] Eva. [54:46] Eva. [54:47] Eva. [54:48] Eva. [54:49] Eva. [54:50] Eva. [54:51] Eva. [54:52] Eva. [54:53] Eva. [54:54] Eva. [54:55] Eva. [54:56] Eva. [54:57] Eva. [54:58] Eva. [54:59] Eva. [55:00] Eva. [55:01] of the civilization but we were on teetering on the edge of huge huge [55:08] subjects on which everyone here could be incredibly eloquent for much longer than [55:13] we have we've run out of time thank you so much for coming thank you my panel